There's lots to argue in this thread.
avian: Creation and Evolution are opposite beliefs.
Evolution believes that the universe happened by
chance and Creation believes that some kind of being
purposefully created everything.
Something can't be on purpose and yet have happened by chance at the same time.
If you're saying who created The Big Bang then who created god?
Do you know what atheists believed before the Big Bang theory? Atheism wasn't invented when they came up with the big bang theory. It existed before then. They believed at the time that the universe was eternal and had always existed. They didn't believe it had a beginning. It's not logically impossible to believe there is something above us (such as the universe or a god) that is higher than we are and has always been around.
It's just eventually, scientists discovered a lot of evidence that pointed to the fact that the universe MUST have had a beginning. It became logically hard to believe that it didn't and that's when they came up with the big bang theory.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_BangPart of the big bang theory on wikipedia. It's when scientists discovered that the world HAD to have had a beginning because it was constantly expanding outward.
It's not that the idea of an eternal being (or place, like the universe) is an impossible concept. Look at numbers. We have numbers that have no end to them in math. They go on forever. Eternally. It's confusing to think about how a number could go on forever, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.
It's just hard for anyone to believe the
universe existed eternally if they know all the facts. It doesn't make sense.
And of course, once you come to that conclusion, the natural question people ask is,"What existed before the Big Bang?" Scientists have come nowhere close to finding an answer to that question and they dodge it by trying to ask the Christians what existed before their God did. We never claimed our God had a beginning, but you guys claimed the universe did. If you're going to make any kind of claim like that, can't you at least think it through and find an answer instead of immediately blaming Christians for your lack of knowledge?
What do you define as "proof"? Are you going to give me this "proof" for your belief?
And you believe that we're hairless monkeys who shape-shifted over thousands of years out of slime.
I can throw around insulting phrases, too, and try to seem cool by using them.
I believe there is a scientific explanation for why we're here, too, and I'm a Christian. =D So nothing you said there meant anything.
Someone genuinely asked you for proof for your beliefs, instead of just repeating over and over again about how you believe in them. Are you going to give any proof or are you going to keep talking in assumptions?
Just wondering if I'm going to have to actually think in this debate or if I should just copy/paste: "Believe in God. It's logical!" Over and over again.
Is anyone really arguing against that idea? I didn't see an argument against it. You should always believe in whatever makes the most logical sense.
It's not a double-standard. Everyone should voice their opinion and their best arguments and try to figure out what makes the most sense, regardless of their opinion.
Opinions with strong support will flourish and the ones with no support will fall. That is the way it should be.
Why doesn't it seem right?
Just because you say so? Just because you don't like it?
Because you haven't said, once yet, what is so "wrong" with religion.
And what is "proof with your own eyes"?
Did you see evolution with your own eyes? Did you see an animal evolve? Did you watch some goop get electrocuted and created living single cells?
Wow, if you did. Show me how you did it.
Why are "your own eyes" the highest authority on what you believe in anyway? I don't trust my faulty vision to tell me the truth about the world and everything in it on its own. Not only do I wear glasses (I am blind), but there's lots of things like atoms that I can't even see.
And the senses often trick you. Scientists used to believe the earth was flat. Why? Because they looked around at all the land and they saw flatness, but it's not really flat. Our eyes are just faulty. Empiricism, the belief that all knowledge comes from the senses, is hard to accept for this reason.
And just because something is invisible doesn't mean you shouldn't believe in it.
For instance, you believe in gravity, right? Where is gravity and where can I see it? I want to see it physically so I can believe in it.
You might say,"Watch an apple fall and you'll see gravity."
Is an apple falling what gravity really IS or is it the result of what gravity DOES? Gravity isn't literally an apple falling. Gravity is literally the magnetic pull of objects on other objects. You can only see the results of that, not the real physical thing.
And I believe in God, why? I may not be able to see him, but I see the world around me and how complicated and thought out everything about it is and think,"Someone must have planned this." It's no different than seeing an apple fall from a tree and coming to the conclusion that something must have caused that as well.
If you saw a watch laying on the sand in the ocean would you look at it and think,"Wow, this must have randomly been made by nature." Or would you think,"This is too complicated to have been made by chance, someone must have created this watch and then lost it in the water." You'd naturally come to the second conclusion because the watch is too complicated to have been randomly created in just the way it was perfectly.
home.iitk.ac.in/~ashtew/index_files/life.pdfRead this. "The probability of life arising by chance is billions of times more remote than the probability of a copy of Oxford Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."
That's why I believe in God. The likelihood of you being right is so small.
Why doesn't it seem logical?
Is this another one of your statements where the only proof you are going to give is "because I say so"?
So is science? Or do we not use science to explain things anymore?
I mean, you're not making any point here. Yes, we always try to find the reason and the truth about everything.
Evolution will become nothing more than the Easter Bunny.
Do I win the prize now, too? Or are we actually trying to make points here yet?
I agree that evolution and creation are incompatible ideas, but that doesn't mean I've suddenly decided that God is non-existent. One point doesn't lead to the other.
But science just fills in the gaps, like liquid can fill a glass but doesn't mean it's supposed to, because religion is solid and won't give any answers until it can be crafted into the right shape to fit that glass.
LOL. I can replace the words I like better into all your arguments and they still fit.
You might say,"But science only claims things are true after they proved them to be so."
Then why have they proved their own selves wrong before?
They obviously didn't prove it the first time or they would have proven themselves wrong, now would they?
Now, I'm not against science. I love science, it's improved the world and my life in many ways, but you are against religion and I'm pointing out to you that you have a double-standard.